Stuff

The YouGov/Sunday Times poll this morning showed a four point Labour lead, interpreted in some quarters of the commentariat as showing an advance for Labour after the Paxman interviews. As ever, it was only one poll. Now we have a second post-Paxman poll, a ComRes telephone poll for the Daily Mail & ITV, and this one shows the complete opposite – CON 36%(+1), LAB 32%(-3), LDEM 9%(+1), UKIP 12%(+2), GRN 5%(-2) (tabs).

If the four point Labour lead in this morning’s YouGov poll equalled their best this year, this poll is the biggest Conservative lead ComRes have delivered since 2010. Where YouGov showed Miliband’s ratings improving, ComRes show Cameron widening his lead as best Prime Minister.

There is no great mystery here, I expect we’re just seeing normal sample variation. I said this morning we needed to wait for some more polling to have any idea whether the Paxman interviews had really had any effect, whether there was a consistent trend. With two polls now showing movement in opposition directions there certainly isn’t yet. It could still be that the rest of the week’s polls show a similar movement to YouGov and the ComRes poll was just a blip… or that the rest of the week’s polls show a similar movement to ComRes and the YouGov poll was a blip. I’ve a sneaky suspicion though that we’ve just happened to see two outliers in opposite directions, and we’re going to see lots of polls showing no clear movement. Time will tell.

Look at the crossbreaks in Ashcroft. It is why I said I am going to try and find out the mean, particularly for the Midlands.

Ashcroft had the Liberals in England at 8% for most of March and now he has them down on 7%.

But the big anomaly is Conservative vote of 50% in the Midlands to Labour’s 28% and UKIP collapsing to 9%.

Go back a week and you will see that Ashcroft had UKIP on 18% and the LD on 12%, not the 6% they are on now.

So in a week in the Midlands has seen 14% swing from UKIP/LD to Conservative, and Coservative go from 35% to 50%.

Likely? Probably not, but plausible that it could happen? Definitely.

Labour have stayed the same in both weeks at 28% and Green have bounced up from 4% to 6%.

But as I said last week I feel sory for the LDs if everybody who is thinking about some other Party rushes for the door at the same time.

Well here is your explanation for why Ashcroft’s poll is so odball this week, he either has a problem with his polling in the Midlands or he is on to something as the election ramps up.

And this what is going to be so whacky about this election with so many parties and so many soft voters floating around. In this instance, supposedly, UKIP and and LD voters headed for Conservative at the same time.

Panelbase data confirms that could happen, but we have to see if Ashcroft or anyone else confirms the trend.

For a “country” built on invasion by sea over thousands of years by the Celts, Saxons, Danish and Norwegian vikings and the Norman vikings I find the immigrant debate and which culture is the purist hilarious.

We are all bloody mongrels and I guarantee you that none of us have pure bloodlines, with the influx of Europeans, Asians Africans and “other” islanders from around the world since the sixteenth, if not earlier centuries.

Just look at all the names on this list, there is not a Smith among us. That would be the English Smith’s, not the Scottish ones that is:)

Andy S
‘For a “country” built on invasion by sea over thousands of years by the Celts, Saxons, Danish and Norwegian vikings and the Norman vikings I find the immigrant debate and which culture is the purist hilarious.’

Though those you named fought each other, they were all northern Europeans with similar culture and language (apart from the Celts). Also the most recent was nearly 1000 years ago.

We have always welcomed immigrants. I well remember the Hungarians coming over in 1956, and the first West Indian bus conductors. However, the problem we have now is the sheer numbers of immigrants from radically different cultures. Over 50% of schoolchildren in London are what are known as ‘BME’, and that’s not even counting the more recent Eastern Europeans. To bring this back to polls, it’s no surprise that UKIP are getting popular amongst some people.

Not because of national share but because marginals, especially in and around London will go very red with UKIP doing enough to reduce the Tories by a few percent and Lib dems generally holding up against tories because of labour tactical voting.

I don’t view the idea of a Labour Government + SNP C&S as being anywhere near nailed on.

I think Con + LD is going to exceed Lab + SNP in terms of seats and that Con will be close to 300.

Sometime soon YouGov are going to start to build in a turnout adjustment into their polling (perhaps even tonight given the short campaign has started) which can only help the Conservatives, and that may change a few perspectives here.

Unlike Labour but like the Greens the SNP oppose Trident renewal.
Unlike Labour but like the Greens the SNP support unilateral disarmament.
Unlike Labour but like the Greens the SNP oppose Nuclear power.
Unlike Labour but like the Greens the SNP binding CO2 limits.
Unlike Labour but like the Greens the SNP want to increase public spending.

Sometime soon YouGov are going to start to build in a turnout adjustment into their polling (perhaps even tonight given the short campaign has started) which can only help the Conservatives

It seems like it should, but there have been months when the Ipsos Mori filter has actually helped Labour. I don’t know if that’s a quirk in how they filter or MoE or what, but the turnout gap doesn’t seem as consistent as it has in past elections.

(IIRC the Ashcroft turnout filter always helps the Tories. Not sure about the others.)

So, it’s starting to look like the first ‘debate’ had little or no effect on polling after all. Lab and Con remain neck and neck, while UKIP and Greens get gently squeezed. Will Thursday’s 7-headed debate have any effect? Possibly not, though the added publicity it gives to UKIP, Greens, SNP and PC is probably worth something, regardless of who is judged to have ‘won’ or ‘lost’ the debate.